[WikiEN-l] Coordination on Secret/private lists

[Alec Conroy]

On 12/8/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I am glad to see Alec laying his cards on the table here.

Ouch!   Well, I don't know how to take this, per se, other than to
apologize for inadvertant toe-stepping.  Granted, I wasn't unaware
that some toes were getting tender, but I didn't realize what large
and influencial toes they were.

--
Reading you email, I get the feeling like you feel like this whole
issue was manufacture by malcontents-- but really, all I and other
concerned editors have done is reeped the seeds of confusion sown by
Durova's own words.

Durova was quite clear that she had consulted with other "sleuths" and
that she had received "enthusiastic" endorsements.  I didn't concoct
the theory that there was extensive collaboration-- Durova cited that
collaboration to justify her actions.  When it turned out that
whatever group had collaborated in the !! was, essentially, smoking
crack,  I honestly thought I could help the project out by asking
pointed questions to try to determine who the amorphous assortment
was.

Similarly, I didn't create the idea of a 'list, the existence of which
is unknown', I just quoted Durova.  Whether it was an email list, a
Wikipedia list, a Wikia list,  or what-- that I have never known.  I
honestly thought it would be useful to the project to know what forum
was involved, and I thought it would be helpful to ask pointed
questions on that subject.

Again, when I suggested the list had been used to collaborate, again,
I'm just quoting what Durova herself seems to confirm.
PrivateMusings asked if there has been any off-wiki collaboration,
Durova cites PM's query as evidence that "they" don't know about the
list.  You needed be of any conspiratorial bent to somehow suspect
that, in Durova's mind at least, some "list they don't know exists" is
connected to "off-wiki collaboration".  Durova's the one who privately
answered PM's query by referring to the list-- not me.

Look at it from my point of view, Jimbo.  In the leaked "secret
evidence" email, Durova certainly  'appears' to have claimed there is
some list, somewhere, that was secret, that was being used for
collaboration.

I mean, we can all agree that is how things certain appear from an
outside vantage point, right?  That's what all the fuss is about.

Durova didn't lose her bit for a 75 mins "oops" that she herself
corrected, after all.   She didn't drop out of the election because
she accidently hit the wrong button, and Mercury didn't get 67 oppose
votes in less than five hours because he just accidently supported a
bad block.  These things occurred because there was a very real
concern about how this block was made, who discussed it, where it was
discussed, what they said about it, and what similar discussions have
taken place.